Abstract:4058 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are now standard-of-care for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The predictive significance of PD-L1 expression in ESCC has been investigated by different antibodies, scoring algorithms and cutoff values in several phase III trials. However, it remains controversial whether PD-L1 is a predictive biomarker for response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Evaluating the concordance of the commercially available PD-L1 assays is essential to understand the discrepancy in the ESCC clinical trials, and helpful to further investigate the predictive value of PD-L1 expression. Methods: 145 archival tumor samples were obtained from 131 patients with ESCC (stage I-IV) at National Taiwan University Hospital. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded archival tumor samples were assessed by three commercially available PD-L1 assays: VENTANA SP263, Dako 22C3 and Dako 28-8 assays. Assays were performed in a College of American Pathologists accredited central laboratory and scored for PD-L1 staining by using multiple metrics including tumor cell score (TC), immune cell score (IC) and combined positive score (CPS) or tumor area percentage (TAP). Analytical concordance was calculated pairwise between assays using the Spearman (ρ) rank correlation coefficient. Classification concordance, including agreement between clinically relevant scoring algorithms, was investigated using positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and overall percent agreement (OPA) at multiple cutoff values to assess the overlap between populations by using different assays. Results: SP263, 22C3 and 28-8 assays showed good analytical correlation for TC staining (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient 0.8–0.9). Correlation was lower for IC (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient 0.59-0.61). There was moderate overlap between populations identified by SP263 and 28-8 or 22C3 based on CPS or TAP algorithm at multiple cutoff values. OPAs for these 3 assays ranged from 68%–88% at various matched algorithms. The SP263 and 22C3 PD-L1 assays appeared relatively more sensitive, assigning a higher proportion of patients as PD-L1 positive or high, compared to 28-8 assay. When using assay-specific clinically relevant algorithm, moderate classification agreement was seen for SP263 versus 22C3 or 28-8. Differences were observed between patient populations with tumor classified as PD-L1 high versus PD-L1 low/negative using CPS≥10, TAP≥10% and TC≥1%. The PPA between 22C3 CPS≥10 and SP263 TAP≥10 or 28-8 CPS≥10 or 28-8 TC≥1% were 75%, 57% and 68% respectively. Conclusions: This study is the first dataset to compare various PD-L1 assays in ESCC. Differences in classification of patients with PD-L1 high versus low/negative using clinically relevant algorithms suggest that caution should be taken when comparing data across the trials.

A comparative study on assessment of HER-2 of invasive breast cancers by using FDA and ASCO/CAP scoring systems

A Comparative Study on HER-2 Expression by Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization in Breast Cancer Tissue

Impact of the 2018 ASCO/CAP HER2 Guidelines Update for HER2 Testing by FISH in Breast Cancer

Comparision of HER2/neu Oncogene Detected by Chromogenic In-Situ Hybridization and Immunohistochemistry in Breast Cancer

A Nomogram Based on Combining Clinical Features and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound is Not Able to Identify Her-2 Over-Expressing Cancer from Other Breast Cancers.

Comparison of three scoring methods using the FDA-approved 22C3 immunohistochemistry assay to evaluate PD-L1 expression in breast cancer and their association with clinicopathologic factors

HER2 Overexpression/amplification Status in Colorectal Cancer: a Comparison Between Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Using Five Different Immunohistochemical Scoring Criteria

Comparison between analysis of HER2 gene and chromosome 17 in breast cancer by dual-probe chromogenic in situ hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization

[Assessment of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancer: a Comparison of Dual-Color In-Situ Hybridization and Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization].

Comparison of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment for HER-2/neu status in Taiwanese breast cancer patients

ELISA-like QDB method to meet the emerging need of Her2 assessment for breast cancer patients

Comparison of Different Scoring Systems in the Assessment of Estrogen Receptor Status for Predicting Prognosis in Endometrial Cancer

Re-evaluation of HER2 status in 1 501 invasive breast cancers according to the 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologist guidelines

Evaluation of HER2 Oncogene Amplification and Overexpression in Breast Cancer and Their Clinical Significance

Expression of C-erbB-2 Protein in Different Sliding Techniques of Breast Cancer

Comparison of HER2 and phospho-HER2 expression between biopsy and resected breast cancer specimens using a quantitative assessment method

Concordance among the Three Commercially Available PD-L1 Assays for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

HER2 Protein Expression Level is Positively Associated with the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in HER2-positive Breast Cancer

Concordance between pathologists and between specimen types in detection of HER2-low breast carcinoma by immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemical assessment of HER2 low breast cancer: interobserver reproducibility and correlation with digital image analysis

Comparison of immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR for assessing ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 and evaluating subtypes in patients with breast cancer